Conspricary #1: JFK who do you think did it?

[ConHog]

Actually you do not and you just proved you do not.

The claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn us from Vietnam has been argued by many historians since the Vietnam war began. It is a worthy argument but not a certainty that he MIGHT have withdrawn, historians disagree and in fact it is all speculation simply because it never happened. What MIGHT have happened is always speculation.

Speculation is not fact nor is it evidence.

Either way none of what you claim is evidence that Oswald was duped and the CIA killed Kennedy under LBJ's direction. As you point out in your post it is easy to IMAGINE that it happened that way but imagination by definition is not reality and does not constitute evidence.

Congratulations on a masters degree but you still have no evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK involving LBJ the CIA etc.

Of course , this is why it's called a conspiracy theory and not fact. I BELIEVE the evidence points to my conclusion. I certainly don't claim 100% it's true though.

[soupnazi630]

Of course , this is why it's called a conspiracy theory and not fact. I BELIEVE the evidence points to my conclusion. I certainly don't claim 100% it's true though.

At first you stated it as fact and that no theory was needed.

It's not even a theory at all as you stated in your last post it is IMAGINARY.

There is no evidence to support such a conclusion.

[LuvRPgrl]

You're right about the million stories part but stories aren't evidence. Even FBI agents like attention and are willing to lie to get it.

.

WHEN asked what is credible evidence,you mentioned ""credible" witnesses, then when someone is using an FBI agent, you say he is lieing.
So, it sounds like "credible" is defined by what you want to believ

Ruby killed Oswald. Ruby was not a JFK junkie, so there has to be another reason for it. When you come up with the various possibilities, or the one real reason, you will have your answer.
Ruby murdering Oswald is the single most important and compelling fact in the whole, "Who dunnit"

W

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually you do not and you just proved you do not.

The claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn us from Vietnam has been argued by many historians since the Vietnam war began. It is a worthy argument but not a certainty that he MIGHT have withdrawn, historians disagree and in fact it is all speculation simply because it never happened. What MIGHT have happened is always speculation.

Speculation is not fact nor is it evidence.

Either way none of what you claim is evidence that Oswald was duped and the CIA killed Kennedy under LBJ's direction. As you point out in your post it is easy to IMAGINE that it happened that way but imagination by definition is not reality and does not constitute evidence.

Congratulations on a masters degree but you still have no evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK involving LBJ the CIA etc.

The question "Is there any proof that JFK was planning on pulling out of S Vietnam" is the wrong question.
All that matter is If LBJ and/or his wife and/or his wifes family believed it.

But you didnt consider that because you start out with every bit of information from the POV that Oswald did it alone.

[soupnazi630]

WHEN asked what is credible evidence,you mentioned ""credible" witnesses, then when someone is using an FBI agent, you say he is lieing.
So, it sounds like "credible" is defined by what you want to believ

Ruby killed Oswald. Ruby was not a JFK junkie, so there has to be another reason for it. When you come up with the various possibilities, or the one real reason, you will have your answer.
Ruby murdering Oswald is the single most important and compelling fact in the whole, "Who dunnit"

W

You need to pay more attention to detail.

I pointed out specific facts which PROVED he was lying I did not merely call him that or claim he is lacking in credibility. Nor is he a credible witness for the simple reason he was not a witness AT ALL. He was not there. Credible is defined by one not being contradicted by ones own documents as he was.

Ruby did not need to be a JFK junkie or fan to support his motivation. He explained why he shot Oswald and maintained that motive for years before dying himself. Any reasonable person can only conclude that when a convicted murderer admits to having committed murder and then explains their motives that the motive they give IS THE REAL ONE.

[soupnazi630]

The question "Is there any proof that JFK was planning on pulling out of S Vietnam" is the wrong question.
All that matter is If LBJ and/or his wife and/or his wifes family believed it.

But you didnt consider that because you start out with every bit of information from the POV that Oswald did it alone.

I did not ask if there is any proof that JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam as i stated it is historic speculation.

What ever LBJ his wife or family believed about that is irrelevant.

From the POV of one who has no idea who shot Kennedy the question of Vietnam is irrelevant because it has no bearing on who shot JFK.

There is no evidence linking LBJ to his death.

[LuvRPgrl]

You need to pay more attention to detail.

I pointed out specific facts which PROVED he was lying I did not merely call him that or claim he is lacking in credibility. Nor is he a credible witness for the simple reason he was not a witness AT ALL. He was not there. Credible is defined by one not being contradicted by ones own documents as he was.

Ruby did not need to be a JFK junkie or fan to support his motivation. He explained why he shot Oswald and maintained that motive for years before dying himself. Any reasonable person can only conclude that when a convicted murderer admits to having committed murder and then explains their motives that the motive they give IS THE REAL ONE.

so you consider a convicted murder as credible, but not an FBI agent??

What did Ruby say his motive was?

[LuvRPgrl]

I did not ask if there is any proof that JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam as i stated it is historic speculation.

What ever LBJ his wife or family believed about that is irrelevant.

From the POV of one who has no idea who shot Kennedy the question of Vietnam is irrelevant because it has no bearing on who shot JFK.

There is no evidence linking LBJ to his death.

hot
IF one is looking to see if LBJ might have been behind it, then what he BELIEVED is very important, it is more important than what Kennedy was or was not planning, or if anyone could even speculate on it.

So what evidence do we have for ANYONE who may have shot Kennedy.?

[soupnazi630]

so you consider a convicted murder as credible, but not an FBI agent??

What did Ruby say his motive was?

One more time when a murderer CONFESSES and then explains his motive yes he is credible at least as far as his motive is concerned.

Once one is convicted and confesses what more is to be gained by lying about motive?

Anyone FBI agent or not is not credible when it is proven as it was in this case that they lied.

Ruby stated he was distraught over the murder ( as most Americans were ) loved and admired JFK ( supported by any witness who knew him well ) and anguished over the fate of Jackie Kennedy.

All consistent with witnesses ( who knew him ) descriptions of the man

[soupnazi630]

hot
IF one is looking to see if LBJ might have been behind it, then what he BELIEVED is very important, it is more important than what Kennedy was or was not planning, or if anyone could even speculate on it.

So what evidence do we have for ANYONE who may have shot Kennedy.?

There is not even a speck of evidence that LBJ was behind it ergo what he believed is irrelevant.

The evidence proving Oswald shot Kennedy is overwhelming.

It is forensic evidence, physical evidence, witness statements and descriptions. More so than most convicted murderers in fact.

So far however no conspiracy theorist has any evidence that anyone else was involved.

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually you do not and you just proved you do not.

The claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn us from Vietnam has been argued by many historians since the Vietnam war began. It is a worthy argument but not a certainty that he MIGHT have withdrawn.

Actually it is A CERTAINTY THAT HE MIGHT HAVE WITHDRAWN. what isnt a certainty is that he would. It already planned if everything continued as was going in Nam already
,

historians disagree and in fact it is all speculation simply because it never happened. What MIGHT have happened is always speculation..

Of course it didnt happen, he was assasinated before it was due to occur, this doesnt disprove the PLANs to withdraw, which is a very credible reason to kill someone.

Speculation is not fact nor is it evidence..

neither are your opinions couched as "evidence"

Either way none of what you claim is evidence that Oswald was duped and the CIA killed Kennedy under LBJ's direction.

what proof do you have that Oswald acted alone?

. As you point out in your post it is easy to IMAGINE that it happened that way but imagination by definition is not reality and does not constitute evidence. .

It doesnt constiture evidence, but that doesnt mean what you are imaging is not reality, havent you ever heard someone say "its exactly as I imagined it".

[soupnazi630]

Actually it is A CERTAINTY THAT HE MIGHT HAVE WITHDRAWN. what isnt a certainty is that he would. It already planned if everything continued as was going in Nam already
,Of course it didnt happen, he was assasinated before it was due to occur, this doesnt disprove the PLANs to withdraw, which is a very credible reason to kill someone.

neither are your opinions couched as "evidence"

what proof do you have that Oswald acted alone?

It doesnt constiture evidence, but that doesnt mean what you are imaging is not reality, havent you ever heard someone say "its exactly as I imagined it".

Try a dictionary, look up the word MIGHT, when you claim something might have happened or might not have happened it is by definition NOT a certainty.

It was also never planned as you claim.

It may be in some people's mind a credible reason to kill someone but one needs a hell of a lot more than a motive to prove murder. Any given victim of murder has likely left many people with motive to commit such murder but one needs more than that one needs evidence that the person with motive committed the crime. For example , rich guy dies due to foul play. Do his heirs stand to gain ? Probably! Does this mean they are the ones guilty of killing him? In most cases no.

As for Oswald acting alone one can speculate all one likes or use one imaginations all one likes but once again that is not reality. The evidence is overwhelming that Oswald killed Kennedy but not a shred of evidence establishes an accomplice or accomplices which by definition is needed if one states there was a conspiracy. The investigations into the killing such as the Warren Commission were some of the most exhaustive intensive and comprehensive investigations ever conducted into into a specific crime. Included was exhaustive detailed examinations of any claim which may have led to identification of an accomplish or conspiracy and they found no evidence of either. Under such circumstances the question is not how can one prove he acted alone but instead what proof is there of a conspiracy. The answer is none.

Stating that others may or may not have had motive is meaningless because there is no evidence anyone else was involved. It is also meaningless because there were of course many people with motive. Any president makes enemies. That is simple fact established by the fact that a president is a successful politician who had to defeat others to get elected and who had many people voting AGAINST him even if he ultimately won. Any of those people can be described as having MOTIVE but that is not enough to imply they committed the crime of killing said president.

[LuvRPgrl]

In particular, the various investigations performed by the U.S. government were faulted for insufficient consideration of the possibility of a conspiracy in each case. The Committee in its report also made recommendations for legislative and administrative improvements, including making some assassinations Federal crimes.
The Chief Counsel of the Committee later changed his views that the CIA was being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation when he learned that the CIA's special liaison to the Committee researchers, George Joannides, was actually involved with some of the organizations that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with in the months leading up to the assassination, including an anti-Castro group, the DRE, which was linked to the CIA, where the liaison, Joannides, worked in 1963. Chief Counsel Blakey later stated that Joannides, instead, should have been interviewed by the Committee, rather than serving as a gatekeeper to the CIA's evidence and files regarding the assassination. He further disregarded and suspected all the CIA's statements and representations to the Committee, accusing it of obstruction of justice. ^[2]Try a dictionary, look up the word MIGHT, when you claim something might have happened or might not have happened it is by definition NOT a certainty..[/QUOTE]DUH, why not state the obvious

It was also never planned as you claim..

Thanks for your OPINION

It may be in some people's mind a credible reason to kill someone but one needs a hell of a lot more than a motive to prove murder. Any given victim of murder has likely left many people with motive to commit such murder but one needs more than that one needs evidence that the person with motive committed the crime. For example , rich guy dies due to foul play. Do his heirs stand to gain ? Probably! Does this mean they are the ones guilty of killing him? In most cases no..

You should apply your statement to Ruby , his motive for shooting oswald is weak at best.
foul play, actually in most cases yes.

As for Oswald acting alone one can speculate all one likes or use one imaginations all one likes but once again that is not reality. The evidence is overwhelming that Oswald killed Kennedy but not a shred of evidence establishes an accomplice or accomplices which by definition is needed if one states there was a conspiracy..

Apparentlly the HSCA disagrees with you

The investigations into the killing such as the Warren Commission were some of the most exhaustive intensive and comprehensive investigations ever conducted into into a specific crime. Included was exhaustive detailed examinations of any claim which may have led to identification of an accomplish or conspiracy and they found no evidence of either..

Again, they disagree
Under such circumstances the question is not how can one prove he acted alone but instead what proof is there of a conspiracy. The answer is none..[/QUOTE]Wrong

Stating that others may or may not have had motive is meaningless because there is no evidence anyone else was involved. It is also meaningless because there were of course many people with motive. Any president makes enemies. That is simple fact established by the fact that a president is a successful politician who had to defeat others to get elected and who had many people voting AGAINST him even if he ultimately won. Any of those people can be described as having MOTIVE but that is not enough to imply they committed the crime of killing said president.

repeating yourself doesnt make it true.

1. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
2. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

[LuvRPgrl]

At first you stated it as fact and that no theory was needed.

It's not even a theory at all as you stated in your last post it is IMAGINARY.
a
There is no evidence to support such a conclusion.

An assasination is about ending someone life, often with the plan to escape after
Conspiracies are by definition intended to be stealth, therefore usually about the only evidence will NOT be physical evidence.

. Oswald did not want to get caught, yet was easily apprehended.
Ruby had NO CREDIBLE motive for murdering Oswald, other than coverup
. RUBY'S personallity doesnt lead one to think he would murder someone for the motive you assign to him. In fact quite the opposite.
He was heavily involved in issues that involve vices and catering to ones desire for immediate gratification, those kind of people never are willing to give up their life based on the reasons you ascribe to him. Thats a joke, hiding under a blanket doesnt make the information "not credible"

You simply dismiss anyone who states anything contrary to Oswald acted alone by claiming they are lieing or not credible.
. You say one needs more than motive to '" prove " something, yet you dismiss and FBI agent based only on the motive that he seeks attention, even though a research of the man indicates he is not an attention seeker, which is normal for FBI agents, as they rarely are recognized for their work, except anonymously

Regarding Kennedys plan to pull out of vietman, you said he MIGHT have such plans, and since Might doesnt prove he will, make it irrelevant.
But, it wasnt "he might have plans", he did IN FACT have such plans.

Your arrogance is exceeded only by your narrow mindedness.

The causes of death by possible witnesses or people who had connections to the assasination is bizarre.

[J.T]